STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: EH 120270 RO
43-05 REALTY CORP.
NO.: DE 120259 S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 22, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued July 30, 1990. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apartment C-2 located at 43-05 Forley
Street, Elmhurst, N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered a rent
reduction for failure to maintain required or essential services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of Complaint of Decrease in Services on May 25, 1989. She
alleged the following decreases in services:
1. No cold water from kitchen sink
2. Broken kitchen faucets
3. Leaking pipes under sink
4. Bathroom cold water keeps running
5. Peeling paint and plaster throughout apartment.
The owner was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. No response was ever
received by the Administrator.
A physical inspection of the apartment was ordered. The
inspection was conducted on May 2, 1990 and revealed the
1. Leaking kitchen cold water faucet
2. Kitchen hot water faucet broken
3. Bathroom ceiling cracked
The following services were found to have been maintaIned:
1. No evidence of leaking pipes under sink
2. No evidence of leak in bathroom cold water pipe
3. No evidence of peeling paint and plaster, other
than bathroom ceiling
The Administrator ordered a rent reduction totaling $11.00 for
the three services violations found.
On appeal, the owner states that repairs were made on two
occasions to the kitchen and bathroom faucets. It also attaches
a copy of an answer to the complaint, allegedly filed with DHCR
on June 22, 1989. In that answer the owner stated, in substance,
that all repairs had been made. The owner repeats this assertion
in the petition. The tenant filed a response on September 10,
1990 wherein she stated that the kitchen water problems were not
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
The owner's asserts that a timely answer was filed with
DHCR. However, no such answer was contained in the record and a
check of the records indicates that the complaint was served on
the owner at the proper address. Even assuming arguendo that the
answer was filed, the inspector's report contradicts the owner's
assertions. It is settled that the report of a DHCR inspector is
entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported statements
of a party to the proceeding.
The owner may file for rent restoration when all services
have been restored.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA